Exodus 4:24-26...God sought to kill Moses?

[TheoloJer]

This is a question that I think rarely comes up in these forums (maybe once or twice), so I wanted to address it.

While I was reading for my Old Testament class weeks ago, I came across Exodus 4:24-26 where it states that Yahweh met with Moses at the Inn and sought to kill him for not having a circumcision. Notice, how it takes place after he instructed him to go and be a representative of him to lead the people out of Egypt, back in the form of a Burning bush.

To put it this way, I’m kinda confused by this change of story direction in Exodus. Doesn’t it seem out of nowhere?

Granted, there might be symbolism that I’m not seeing, like perhaps God is testing Moses’ character, or perhaps he was testing to see how prepared he was in the face of danger…

It really puzzles me.

Replies?

 

[bzkoss236]

Looking at the commentary in my Bible, it simply just says that it appears God was angry at Moses for disobeying the divine command He gave to Abraham, but that his life was spared when Moses’ wife circumcised their son.

Like you said, there may be some underlying symbolism here, but sometimes the simplest explanation is the best.

 

[RPRPsych]

This is a question that I think rarely comes up in these forums (maybe once or twice), so I wanted to address it.

While I was reading for my Old Testament class weeks ago, I came across Exodus 4:24-26 where it states that Yahweh met with Moses at the Inn and sought to kill him for not having a circumcision. Notice, how it takes place after he instructed him to go and be a representative of him to lead the people out of Egypt, back in the form of a Burning bush.

To put it this way, I’m kinda confused by this change of story direction in Exodus. Doesn’t it seem out of nowhere?

Granted, there might be symbolism that I’m not seeing, like perhaps God is testing Moses’ character, or perhaps he was testing to see how prepared he was in the face of danger…

It really puzzles me.

Replies?

Modern scholars would answer this by saying that the book of Exodus was compiled from several oral and written sources or traditions about Moses, and when this compilation (“redaction”) took place, some passages were not organized in chronological order.

But a simpler explanation is this: Moses has had a theophany; a personal encounter with God. He has been commissioned by God to lead His people out of slavery. Despite this, Moses fails to keep the fundamental command to circumcise his son, which is both a grave offence and an indication that he isn’t taking his God-giving calling as seriously as he ought to.

And “God met him and sought to kill him” is an anthropomorphism; it should not be taken literally. God didn’t walk up to Moses with a spear and say “Prepare to die!” Instead, Moses and his wife probably received a clear and unequivocal message - or, more accurately, a warning - of God’s wrath. Perhaps the inn caught fire, or the roof caved in. Perhaps it was just a natural sign, such as thunder or lightning We don’t know. Whatever it was, it was enough to bring Moses back to his senses, and tell him that had to follow the covenant of Abraham, rather than living like an Egyptian or a Midianite, and his life was spared once Zipporah circumcised their child.

 

[Carolus_Martell]

Jesus also was harsh with hypocrites …and that’s what Moses was being, a hypocrite.

He was insisting others circumcise their children but he didn’t.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I’ve sometimes wondered about this peculiar bit of Biblical lore.

If God wanted to kill someone, He wouldn’t have much trouble doing it. Ananias and Sapphira dropped dead on the spot as soon as Peter spoke the word.

Second I wonder why the heck an infinite, eternal, omnipotent God would care one way or the other about a man being circumcised.

Third there’s a bit more when his wife touches Moses feet with the circumcised skin of her infant son.

Exodus 4:25 NIV

But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son’s foreskin and touched [Moses’] feet with it. “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me,” she said.

This seems a peculiar method for God Almighty to be reconciled to Moses.

I’m afraid the theology of this bit of Biblical testimony escapes me.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

This is a question that I think rarely comes up in these forums (maybe once or twice), so I wanted to address it.

While I was reading for my Old Testament class weeks ago, I came across Exodus 4:24-26 where it states that Yahweh met with Moses at the Inn and sought to kill him for not having a circumcision. Notice, how it takes place after he instructed him to go and be a representative of him to lead the people out of Egypt, back in the form of a Burning bush.

To put it this way, I’m kinda confused by this change of story direction in Exodus. Doesn’t it seem out of nowhere?

Granted, there might be symbolism that I’m not seeing, like perhaps God is testing Moses’ character, or perhaps he was testing to see how prepared he was in the face of danger…

It really puzzles me.

Replies?

The Septuagint substitutes “an angel” for God.

 

[bzkoss236]

The Septuagint substitutes “an angel” for God.

If that’s true, then all Catholic Bible translations should say “an angel” instead of God, because all Catholic Bibles are based on the Septuagint, but my Bible says God.

 

[Publisher]

If that’s true, then all Catholic Bible translations should say “an angel” instead of God, because all Catholic Bibles are based on the Septuagint, but my Bible says God.

Just as with all manuscripts, not every copy of the LXX agrees with one another.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

If that’s true, then all Catholic Bible translations should say “an angel” instead of God, because all Catholic Bibles are based on the Septuagint, but my Bible says God.

Actually, all Catholic Bibles other than those that are direct translations of the Vulgate are based on a particular copy of the Hebrew Bible called the Masoretic Text, not the Septuagint.

It is however true that for the books and portions of books that are in the Catholic Bible but not in the Masoretic Text that the Septuagint is used as a source for only those particular books. Maybe that’s where picked up the idea that the Catholic Bible is based on the Septuagint.

The Catholic Bible also excludes some books that are included in the Septuagint.

 

[bzkoss236]

Actually, all Catholic Bibles other than those that are direct translations of the Vulgate are based on a particular copy of the Hebrew Bible called the Masoretic Text, not the Septuagint.

It is however true that for the books and portions of books that are in the Catholic Bible but not in the Masoretic Text that the Septuagint is used as a source for only those particular books. Maybe that’s where picked up the idea that the Catholic Bible is based on the Septuagint.

The Catholic Bible also excludes some books that are included in the Septuagint.

Weird, I’ve always heard that the Catholic Bible was based on the Septuagint… I need to do some more studying it seems.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Weird, I’ve always heard that the Catholic Bible was based on the Septuagint… I need to do some more studying it seems.

Just out of curiosity, I’m wondering where you heard this–if you recall and are willing to share the information.

 

[COPLAND_3]

I like what Theodoret of Cyrus concluded with in his Questions on Exodus

The angel had a further purpose in unsheathing his sword. The great Moses was afraid of Pharaoh and often betrayed that fear as when he asked, “Who am I to go to Pharaoh king of Egypt?” (Ex 3:31) and when he said, “Appoint someone competent whom you shall send.” Ex 4:13 and again, “I have a weak voice and a slow tongue.” (Ex 4:10) So by threatening him with punishment, the angel drove out one fear with another, the lesser with the greater. Baring his sword, he seemed to say, “If you are afraid of Pharaoh, you should fear me all the more, because I can strike you even when you cannot see me.”

 

[bzkoss236]

Just out of curiosity, I’m wondering where you heard this–if you recall and are willing to share the information.

I can’t remember right now, but it could have possibly been me misreading or misinterpreting what was written if it wasn’t explicitly stated. I sometimes miss words, change words, or even add words, when reading. It’s an unconscious habit, but most of the time I am able to notice something wasn’t right (especially if what I read makes no sense grammatically or logically) and correct myself by reading it over again slowly. It makes reading large amounts of text difficult.

So, there’s a good chance the source was correct, and I just read it wrong.

 

[AT_Cross]

Circumcision was the way the Israelites entered into covenant relationship with God. The shedding of blood said to God that they were promising to be in his family. To be uncircumcised was to reject a familiar relationship with YHWH. It sounds weird to us be user we live in a different culture, but to them it worked and spoke volumes. Children were a symbol of God’s favor, so I imagine that by surgically altering a region directly related to the creation of a family line, men recognized that they were being made into God’s family. Not circumcising your child would be something like devout Catholic parents not baptizing a child- it was a rejection of God’s desire to enter into covenant relationship.
Don’t read the Bible like a 21st century person. Look at the context. I just finished Bible Basics for Catholics - a very entertaining, short book that helped me understand more about the importance of the various covenants in scripture. Highly recommend.